• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

My New Studio Build (perhaps overly detailed)

#3,081
Microbass said:
Just done a bit of you YouTube’ing... holy moly. It takes over like you.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's the hope. Between that and the remote I should be good to go for easy functionality.

Microbass said:
There’s a companion app for the iPad as well. You might need an an iPad Pro (for screen size) to add to your goodies.
Click to expand...
The companion app also works on an iPhone. I see its use mostly in being able to adjust mic gain from the performer's station if you're self-recording.

Microbass said:
Definitely cheaper than the Raven!
Click to expand...
Different functions from what I can tell. The app controls the input side of things, whereas the Raven is more about the output side of things in the box (i.e. the mix). That said, I'm sure there's some crossover. I'm happy enough with this setup thus far that I'm not sad about skipping the Raven.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Microbass
#3,082
There's not much about the soft limit feature in Apogee's documentation for the Element series. It basically states that a limiter (if engaged) is applied ahead of the AD conversion when the signal crosses -4dbfs. That's a little confusing since dbfs is a measurement of decibels in a digital environment. How can it measure something in the digital environment, trigger it as a result of that measurement, but apply it before the AD conversion? I'm sure there's an explanation that I'm just not getting, but it still seems odd. Regardless, it's a limiter ahead of the AD converter on each channel. On their flagship Symphony products they have selectable flavors of limiting that can be used in a utilitarian way (i.e. to prevent clipping), or as creative tools (i.e. to simulate tape, smash drums on the way in, etc.). The Element series limiter seems to be much simpler with only one universal setting. I'll play around with it to hear how it sounds in practice.
 
#3,083
There's never a free lunch. With DSP there shouldn't be much if any real latency associated with a limiter. It could be a brick wall limiter which slams the signal flat at -4dbfs as opposed to a compressor which will lower the signal level proportionally and take more computation and add latency.
 
#3,085
beans-on-toast said:
There's never a free lunch. With DSP there shouldn't be much if any real latency associated with a limiter. It could be a brick wall limiter which slams the signal flat at -4dbfs as opposed to a compressor which will lower the signal level proportionally and take more computation and add latency.
Click to expand...
I understand the limiter's function, but my point is that the manual states both that it occurs before the AD conversion and that it occurs at -4dbfs. You can't measure in dbfs while still in the analog domain, therefore one of their statements is inaccurate, or there's more information that they're not disclosing in their little manual blurb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beans-on-toast
#3,086
silky smoove said:
I understand the limiter's function, but my point is that the manual states both that it occurs before the AD conversion and that it occurs at -4dbfs. You can't measure in dbfs while still in the analog domain, therefore one of their statements is inaccurate, or there's more information that they're not disclosing in their little manual blurb.
Click to expand...

You are right about it not being clear. Soft limit has been around for a while and the documentation has always been vague. A block diagram of the architecture would be helpful.

It could be that they mean the equivalent of -4dbfs but processed in the analog domain. They clearly state that it is implemented before the AD.
 
#3,087
beans-on-toast said:
It could be that they mean the equivalent of -4dbfs but processed in the analog domain. They clearly state that it is implemented before the AD.
Click to expand...
That's what I assumed was happening as well. The problem is that there is no real equivalency. You'll find some publications will say that -18dbfs is equal to 0db (usually with no indication of U or V), some say -14, others -12, but the reality is that it's no longer a measure of voltage it's a measure of data. Apples and oranges.

It would be nice if they were more clear, but ultimately I'm just going to use it enough to get a handle on what it's doing and then make an experience-based decision on whether or not to engage it on a given channel. Not entirely scientific, but it'll work well enough for my needs :smug:
 
  • Like
Reactions: beans-on-toast
#3,088
silky smoove said:
That's what I assumed was happening as well. The problem is that there is no real equivalency. You'll find some publications will say that -18dbfs is equal to 0db (usually with no indication of U or V), some say -14, others -12, but the reality is that it's no longer a measure of voltage it's a measure of data. Apples and oranges.

It would be nice if they were more clear, but ultimately I'm just going to use it enough to get a handle on what it's doing and then make an experience-based decision on whether or not to engage it on a given channel. Not entirely scientific, but it'll work well enough for my needs :smug:
Click to expand...

I really wish I could come record in there and help you out getting the hang of everything! :laugh:
 
#3,090
With a high bit per sample setting, you can record at a low enough level so as to not approach the level that the soft limit would kick in. Also, when you apply plugins you want to leave enough headroom for the gain that they will add.

That makes me think that you should never need the soft limit. Simplicity in the signal path is always good. If you don't need it, best to leave it disengaged.
 
#3,091
beans-on-toast said:
With a high bit per sample setting, you can record at a low enough level so as to not approach the level that the soft limit would kick in. Also, when you apply plugins you want to leave enough headroom for the gain that they will add.

That makes me think that you should never need the soft limit. Simplicity in the signal path is always good. If you don't need it, best to leave it disengaged.
Click to expand...
If a clean signal is the goal I always record with plenty of headroom. I'm excited about the soft limiter as an artistic device, not necessarily a utilitarian one. On the Symphony units a common practice for more of a "tape" sound is to push into the soft limiter a bit. In online examples it works REALLY well. There's also an option to slam into it hard for things like a crushed drum sound. It's not a question of need, it's a question of wanting it as an option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beans-on-toast
#3,092
Props to Apogee customer service. I bought my interfaces back on November 30th of 2018. On December 1st (i.e. one day later), they announced that their FX Rack Dual Path plugins, which at the time were still in beta and didn't yet have the dual path functionality worked out, would be made available to anyone who purchased an interface prior to the end of 2018. I certainly qualified, but didn't grab a copy of the plugins before the promotion ended. Yesterday I emailed Apogee asking if they would honor that promotion, especially now that the plugins are out of beta, the dual path functionality works, and they're selling (for $596 USD) these extremely well-reviewed plugins. Their customer service guy Greg said "Oh, you definitely deserve a copy of these plugins. Give me your iLok account name and I'll add the licenses to your account right away." Gotta love that! I'm waiting to confirm that these will run on a software iLok, because I'm absolutely done using a hardware iLok and have abandoned all software/hardware that requires one.

The dual path approach is very cool. Rather than relying on hardware DSP entirely like UAD, or processor power entirely like basically everyone else, the dual path gives you a ton of routing options to use one, the other, or both simultaneously. I'm most excited about it for a scenario where I want to apply EQ and compression while tracking, not have it get printed, not have it cause a bunch of latency, and yet still let the performer hear something in line with what they think the final product should sound like. Hopefully it'll make things more inspiring and will keep them from say EQ'ing a bass guitar signal in such a way that it will be unusable at mixdown since they don't like a flat signal. EQ and compress it in their headphone mix to taste and have them go at it and remain happy and inspired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr Blues, peterpalmieri and Microbass
#3,093
silky smoove said:
Props to Apogee customer service. I bought my interfaces back on November 30th of 2018. On December 1st (i.e. one day later), they announced that their FX Rack Dual Path plugins, which at the time were still in beta and didn't yet have the dual path functionality worked out, would be made available to anyone who purchased an interface prior to the end of 2018. I certainly qualified, but didn't grab a copy of the plugins before the promotion ended. Yesterday I emailed Apogee asking if they would honor that promotion, especially now that the plugins are out of beta, the dual path functionality works, and they're selling (for $596 USD) these extremely well-reviewed plugins. Their customer service guy Greg said "Oh, you definitely deserve a copy of these plugins. Give me your iLok account name and I'll add the licenses to your account right away." Gotta love that! I'm waiting to confirm that these will run on a software iLok, because I'm absolutely done using a hardware iLok and have abandoned all software/hardware that requires one.

The dual path approach is very cool. Rather than relying on hardware DSP entirely like UAD, or processor power entirely like basically everyone else, the dual path gives you a ton of routing options to use one, the other, or both simultaneously. I'm most excited about it for a scenario where I want to apply EQ and compression while tracking, not have it get printed, not have it cause a bunch of latency, and yet still let the performer hear something in line with what they think the final product should sound like. Hopefully it'll make things more inspiring and will keep them from say EQ'ing a bass guitar signal in such a way that it will be unusable at mixdown since they don't like a flat signal. EQ and compress it in their headphone mix to taste and have them go at it and remain happy and inspired.
Click to expand...

I have questions about this but I’ve had too many rums. I’ll be back tomorrow.

PS have you completed the vestibule??
 
#3,094
Microbass said:
I have questions about this but I’ve had too many rums. I’ll be back tomorrow.
Click to expand...
I'll wait until I've had too many rums before answering :p

Microbass said:
PS have you completed the vestibule??
Click to expand...
I have not. Nor have I completed the exterior door threshold trim piece. Nor have I completed the HRV baffle boxes. Nor have I completed the exterior hardscaping. Nor have I even cleaned up the massive amount of cardboard and Styrofoam currently occupying the vast majority of my floor space. There's a lot left to do, which is specifically why I'm leaving town tomorrow night to go on a rock climbing trip :smug:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Microbass and letsgethandsome
#3,095
I also get to start building this...

C42C0DA5-842E-49BA-883F-04792B55F0C0.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: lgrankin, marko138, ivorytower and 2 others
#3,097
Door County Bass said:
Beautiful color choice.
Click to expand...
My favorite of Fender’s classic automotive colors. If this works as well as I think it will, I’ll be building a duplicate but in either Daphne Blue or Shell Pink. If you’re keeping score at home you’ll realize that these are the same colors as the original run of Fender’s Mark Hoppus sig basses. They just happened to nail my favorite body and finish choices with those.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back